🔗 Share this article

Only two days before the New York mayoral election, Michael Lange made a bold electoral prediction – not just the winner overall, and block by block. Lange, an expert in elections who grew up in New York City, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and has become something of a local celebrity this year for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise forecast map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate was victorious although missing the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, for instance, the divide between the progressive stronghold, stretching from one neighborhood to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (accurately) that Mamdani would win by huge margins, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, certain media outlets and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in audience and the majority of electors favored Cuomo, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Patterns and Surprises

What was your night?

I had to do that because they were dropping approximately 200K ballots into the tally every few minutes! I was actually somewhat anxious at the beginning: Mamdani was ahead the early vote by 12 points, but there were large groups of votes added after that and his lead went from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

You know, it was possible where election day turned out somewhat badly for Mamdani, where the opponent was going to end up basically increasing his support from the earlier contest. However the winner added half a million supporters to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He went out and greatly broadened his support from the first round.

Expanding Support

How did the mayor-elect get those extra votes from?

He built the coalition that the left always wanted to build: diverse racially, it’s young, tenants and it’s people facing cost pressures. He improved significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the primary. Additionally he boosted his base of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

He created the coalition that the left always wanted to build: multiracial, youthful, renters and residents squeezed by affordability

Additionally, there were some supporters of both candidates – is that a big trend?

It is a real thing, confined to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Muslims. Voters in ethnic enclaves that went for the former president previously went for Zohran this year. However it’s not that he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Effects

One of the big stories of the election was the sky-high participation. Who did that help?

Both sides. Turnout was much greater than I had expected. I figured it could go over 2 million, but it reached 2.3 million – which is a huge number of participants. Existed a substantial opposition group, energized, but the Mamdani base was also motivated, and that sufficed to secure victory.

You predicted he’d exceed half the ballots. Is he likely for that?

Currently it appears he’s favored to get over half. He’s at just over 50% but remain probably 200,000 votes uncounted as of Wednesday morning. Thus I don’t think certain, but I believe probable, and I hope he achieves it because afterwards no one can say Sliwa was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, was another surprise. His vote completely collapsed.

He didn’t win any district in any area. Including one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really was unexpected. The independent kept Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and then added all of these Republicans on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I believe occurred significant strategic balloting by GOP voters. They were doing it prior to Trump tweeted his support for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide if the winning alliance hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

What about your often-discussed “commie corridor” – was support for Mamdani overwhelming in those parts of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view there was some weakening of the progressive zone in some areas like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, instance, the property owners and homeowners all went for the independent. Thus there was a little resistance. However no, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Mamdani won – he was polling between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the election we reported on whether the candidate was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

Exist areas with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Manhattan area, his position on Israel definitely mattered there. Similarly in the moderate communities like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Bronx areas – they favored the independent. And also, you have newcomers from Eastern Europe in the borough, who were pretty staunchly supportive. So it’s unclear if existed major surprises on this one, but he retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale with large leads.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city means politically? Will progressive base serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?

Yes, it’s no coincidence that key figures from the left hail from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that we’ll see additional examples – candidates will come from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

But I think that each urban center in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the epicenters of leftwing power in the nation – because they’re young, people rent and they are places where individuals struggle by the disparities exist.